Key result
Dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators did not reduce the proportion of patients receiving inappropriate shocks compared to single-chamber devices (2% vs 2%, P=1.00).
Why the study?
Dual-chamber ICDs may reduce inappropriate shocks and improve atrial arrhythmia detection compared with single-chamber ICDs, but at additional expense and risk.
RCT (n=100)
Randomized
Yes
Absolute Event Rate: 2% vs 2%
p-value: p=1.00
Dual-chamber ICDs were not associated with fewer inappropriate shocks; leaves open whether added cost and AF detection justify routine use in primary prevention.
AIMS: Dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) may improve specificity and reduce the risk of inappropriate shocks, and enhance atrial arrhythmia (AT/AF) detection to permit stroke prevention compared with single-chamber ICDs, but at additional expense and risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (n = 100) receiving primary prevention ICDs at two USA and two Israeli centres were randomized to dual-chamber or single-chamber devices between December 2008 and December 2010 and were followed for 1 year. Programming in both groups included: delayed detection to avoid therapy for non-sustained episodes; high detection cut-off rates to avoid treating slower, better tolerated arrhythmias; minimized right ventricular pacing; and routine use of supraventricular-ventricular tahcycardia discriminators and antitachycardia pacing. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with inappropriate shocks. One patient in each group (2%) received inappropriate shocks (P = 1.00). Death occurred in two patients in the single-chamber arm, and in none of the patients in the dual-chamber arm (P = 0.15). New AT/AF was detected in 12 patients (24%) in the dual-chamber group, vs. no patients in the single-chamber group (P < 0.001). Among US participants, the mean cost of dual- vs. single-chamber ICD implantation was $16 579 vs. $14 249, respectively (P < 0.001); there was no difference in the quality of life (EQ-5D index difference 0.013, P = 0.769; EQ VAS difference 3.3, P = 0.49). CONCLUSION: When optimal programming is utilized, inappropriate shocks are rare in primary prevention patients with both single- and dual-chamber ICDs. The routine use of dual-chamber ICDs increases the expense without reducing inappropriate shocks or improving the quality of life at 1 year. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00787800.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Friedman et al. (2014) conducted an RCT in Primary sudden cardiac death prevention (n=100). Dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators vs. Single-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators was evaluated on Proportion of patients with inappropriate shocks (p=1.00). Dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators did not reduce the proportion of patients receiving inappropriate shocks compared to single-chamber devices (2% vs 2%, P=1.00).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: